A vote for Labour is a vote for Abortion - Iona Institute

Reilly616 · 11-02-2011 11:18pm

marmurr1916 wrote: »

If there's no constitutional bar to same-sex marriage, then why is there a need for a referendum on the issue?

There isn't. It's just that practically there would be a referendum, since Governments tend not to want to be responsible for making the decision on such contentious issues.

Pudsy33 · 11-02-2011 11:21pm

what a load of nonsense propoganda

CokaColumbo · 11-02-2011 11:33pm

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

I'd like debate you also and show you how you are incorrect about socialism. However, as you say, I should remain on topic and show you how your views on abortion are incorrect.

If your arguments in favour of abortion-legalisation are as weak as the arguments in favour of socialism, I won't hold my breath, friend!!

CoalBucket · 11-02-2011 11:56pm

If abortion is to be introduced in this country it is my understanding that it would require a constitutional ammendement which would require a referendum.

It is something that is within the power of any political party.

12-02-2011 12:17am

CoalBucket wrote: »

If abortion is to be introduced in this country it is my understanding that it would require a constitutional ammendement which would require a referendum.

Wrong. The referendum was in 1983 (the 8th amendment), which passed 67% to 33%. In 1992, the supreme court ruled that a woman had a right to an abortion under Article 40.3.3 (inserted by the 8th amendment) if there was "a real and substantial risk" to her life. This included if the risk was the possibility of suicide. However, no Government has had the integrity to actually introduce legislation, although Dermot Ahern managing to find the time to do the equivalent for a blasphemy law nobody wanted.

CoalBucket · 12-02-2011 12:30am

28064212 wrote: »

Wrong. The referendum was in 1983 (the 8th amendment), which passed 67% to 33%. In 1992, the supreme court ruled that a woman had a right to an abortion under Article 40.3.3 (inserted by the 8th amendment) if there was "a real and substantial risk" to her life. This included if the risk was the possibility of suicide. However, no Government has had the integrity to actually introduce legislation, although Dermot Ahern managing to find the time to do the equivalent for a blasphemy law nobody wanted.

The point I was trying to make was that any alteration of the constitution would require a referendum.

TBH I was stunned by the article linked in the OP about the scare mongerring of the Labour Party and abortion. I also seriously disagree with the article in its views that it was wrong for the Labour party to canvas outside a church.

The point you made in relation to no government introducing legislation is a valid one and I would contend that the reason it has not been addressed is because of the closed minded opinions shared with the author of the article.

With reference to the current status of the legislation I stand corrected. I was aware of the supreme court ruling.

Reilly616 · 12-02-2011 12:30am

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

Abortion in the case of a mothers' life being at stake is more or less constitutionally legal but it has never been legislated upon.

No need for the "more or less". It's very clear cut. If the mother's life is at stake, abortion is legal here.

CokaColumbo · 12-02-2011 12:31am

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

Abortion in the case of a mothers' life being at stake is more or less constitutionally legal but it has never been legislated upon. The Labour party's position on abortion has been and is still that abortion should be allowed if the mother's life is at stake, a significant risk of physical injury to the mother, and if there are foetal abnormalities that will lead to the foetus never being born alive. The above Labour Party proposal are in line with the constitution.

Please refer me to the article in the constitution which permits women to obtain abortions due to their pregnancies having implications for their physical health. You omit Labour's advocacy for abortion in cases of rape and incest.

One only has to compare the abortion laws in Britain, and the situation of abortion on demand which exists there, with the relevant policy aims of the Irish Labour Party to see how radically at odds the group's position is with the Irish constitution.

Reilly616 · 12-02-2011 12:43am

CokaColumbo wrote: »

Please refer me to the article in the constitution which permits women to obtain abortions due to their pregnancies having implications for their physical health. You omit Labour's advocacy for abortion in cases of rape and incest.

One only has to compare the abortion laws in Britain, and the situation of abortion on demand which exists there, with the relevant policy aims of the Irish Labour Party to see how radically at odds the group's position is with the Irish constitution.

Britain doesn't actually have abortion on demand.
See: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1967/87/contents

12-02-2011 12:48am

CokaColumbo wrote: »

Please refer me to the article in the constitution which permits women to obtain abortions due to their pregnancies having implications for their physical health. You omit Labour's advocacy for abortion in cases of rape and incest.

Once again, Labour's position is that we should legislate for the already existing constitutional amendment. They do not have a party position on cases of rape and incest:

Despite a wide divergence of views on the issue of abortion, there is a broad concern that there should be some legislative provision for termination of pregnancy in the case of rape or incest

That is not a position. They specifically go on to say that:

Comprehensive action on these issues in their own right would require a referendum for a constitutional amendment.

A referendum. Asking the people directly

CokaColumbo · 12-02-2011 12:55am

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

I did not omit anything, I have already mentioned the Labour party's position on abortion. There is no need for a further referendum due to the Supreme court ruling. The only thing that is needed is further legislation to be brought through the Oireachtas.

How can advocacy for abortion on the grounds of protecting the mother's health be consistent with a constitution which clearly regards the life of child and mother as equal?

28064212 wrote: »

Once again, Labour's position is that we should legislate for the already existing constitutional amendment. They do not have a party position on cases of rape and incest:
That is not a position. They specifically go on to say that:
A referendum. Asking the people directly

Just because it has to go to referendum does not mean that there is not a consensus within the party itself.

DeVore · 12-02-2011 1:12am

On the plus side... Labour dont rape children.

DeV.

Reilly616 · 12-02-2011 1:24am

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

In 1992 the Supreme court ruling with regard to the X-Case stated that was in line with the constitution. Due to this ruling there is no need for a further referendum.

You are simply wrong.

"Held by the Supreme Court (Finlay C.J., McCarthy, O'Flaherty and Egan JJ.: Hederman J. dissenting) ... That the true interpretation of Article 40, s. 3, sub-s. 3 of the Constitution required that termination of pregnancy was permissible only when it was established as a matter of probability that there was a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother if such termination were not effected."

Clear enough now, or would you like direct quotes from some of the concurring judges?

Chief Justice Finlay said: "I, therefore, conclude that the proper test to be applied is that if it is established as a matter of probability that there is a real and substantial risk to the life, as distinct from the health, of the mother, which can only be avoided by the termination of her pregnancy, such termination is permissible, having regard to the true interpretation of Article 40, s. 3, sub-s. 3 of the Constitution." [1992] 1 IR 1 at 53-54.

Justice O'Flaherty said (at page 87): "Until legislation is enacted to provide otherwise, I believe that the law in this State is that surgical intervention which has the effect of terminating pregnancy bona fide undertaken to save the life of the mother where she is in danger of death is permissible under the Constitution and the law. The danger has to represent a substantial risk to her life though this does not necessarily have to be an imminent danger of instant death."

Justice Egan said (at page 92): "In my opinion the true test should be that a pregnancy may be terminated if its continuance as a matter of probability involves a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother. The risk must be to her life..."

CokaColumbo · 12-02-2011 1:32am

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

In 1992 the Supreme court ruling with regard to the X-Case stated that was in line with the constitution. Due to this ruling there is no need for a further referendum.

That is not true. The X case did not result, at all, in the granting of abortion-rights to women in cases where their physical health was at stake but rather where their actual life was stake (in that case, where their life was at stake due to the potential of suicide). Again: How can advocacy for abortion on the grounds of protecting the mother's health be consistent with a constitution which clearly regards the life of the unborn child and mother as equal?

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

Consensus or no consensus the official standing of the Labour Party again is as follows:

The termination of pregnancy should be allowed in the following circumstances:

•A risk to the life of the woman, including the risk of suicide
•Foetal abnormality which is such that the foetus will never be born alive.
•A risk of significant injury to the physical health of the mother.

KP, you are simply regurgitating what you linked in your last comment. I understand what the officially stated position of the Labour party is and I appreciate your eagerness to get that across.
I am also interested, however, in what Labour has actually promoted when in correspondence with pro-choice groups and the legalisation of abortion in cases of rape and incest is one of those things. Just because that isn't in its stated goals doesn't mean that it isn't part of their pro-choice ideology.

CokaColumbo · 12-02-2011 2:22am

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

I have yet to see such correspondence. The Labour Party has not made any other commitments or pledges other than the Party's official position.

I posted this link previously. It is a Labour party policy statement to Choice Ireland and essentially states that abortion in the cases of rape and incest should, ideally, be legislated for.

Icepick · 12-02-2011 2:38am

So they have good policies as well.

cassi · 12-02-2011 6:15am

Min wrote: »

For nine months of my life my home was in the womb of my mother. It was a place where my life was respected by my mother.
I would like others who have no choice but to live in a womb to be given the same respect and to be allowed to be born alive, not intentionally killed.

I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, for those who claim marriage can mean between the same sex then why do they have to distinguish it by calling it same sex marriage?
Is it because most people associate marriage between people of opposing sexes?

Thank you for the reply Min, But you didn't answer my question!

I want to know, why it would effect you? Not your beliefs etc, I would like to know why it would effect you if someone chose to have an abortion etc?

What about mothers who smoke, drink take drugs put themselves in dangerous situations while pregnant, how exactly does that respect the life of an unborn child!

As for the same sex marriage point, I think your being pedantic now, you know people distinguish in this situation to make it clear what their talking about!

Reilly616 · 12-02-2011 6:32am

Did I miss something, or did KP just delete all his posts once he realised he was wrong?

Dandelion6 · 12-02-2011 8:19am

CokaColumbo wrote: »

I posted this link previously. It is a Labour party policy statement to Choice Ireland and essentially states that abortion in the cases of rape and incest should, ideally, be legislated for.

What it says is that there is a "broad concern" that there should be "some legislative provision" for abortion in the cases of rape and incest, but that they're not planning to make that provision since it would require a referendum and they think the issue is "unsuited" for a referendum.

Essentially what it says is "sorry rape victims, we'd like to help you but it's too controversial".

Dob74 · 12-02-2011 9:49am

nesf wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/david-quinn-any-vote-for-the-labour-party-is-a-vote-for-abortion-2535719.html

All I can do is laugh about this. I mean, do they really think that the average person who listens to the Iona Institute would even remotely consider voting Labour with its liberal social outlook?

Let the dirty tricks begin. This one has MM fingprints all over it.
The spindo proves what a rag is really is by publishing such rubbish.

12-02-2011 10:08am

28064212 wrote: »

It established the right of Irish women to an abortion if a pregnant woman's life was at risk because of pregnancy. Or are you supporting "murdering" the woman as well as the baby?

Why not have a cesarean section followed by adoption?

fatmammycat · 12-02-2011 10:16am

At what stage do you think a fetus is viable? Do you think you honestly think it's as simple as taking a premie out and offering it up for adoption??

12-02-2011 10:22am

fatmammycat wrote: »

At what stage do you think a fetus is viable? Do you think you honestly think it's as simple as taking a premie out and offering it up for adoption??

doesnt have to be so early!

In the case of people with mental problems who might commit suicide why not put the kids up for adoption?

fatmammycat · 12-02-2011 10:27am

The question asked was if the mother's life was in danger, becasue OF the pregnancy, would abortion be acceptable. Things could go wrong early in a pregnancy and if so what then?

fatmammycat · 12-02-2011 10:30am

"In the case of people with mental problems who might commit suicide why not put the kids up for adoption?"

So you would be okay with enforced pregnancy on a mentally unstable person, an invasive operation and then offering up the premature baby- should it survive- for adoption. This sits well with you?

gmoyne · 12-02-2011 1:24pm

Is it just me or are we forgetting that abortion has nothing to do with voting anyone in... Are we forgetting that we have access to any procedure we want outside Ireland so get off your pedestal and concern yourself with something which actually concerns you !

Using the decisions others make for whatever reason they choose, as a reason why I or anyone else should not vote someone into the legislature in the ROI just goes to show that some individuals will never be happy.

My view is that it doesn't matter who you vote for the Government always gets in !

Morag · 12-02-2011 1:37pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Why not have a cesarean section followed by adoption?

you need to look up the condition Preeclampsia which is a condition caused by pregnancy and is known to be fatal.

12-02-2011 1:45pm

Deleted User wrote: »

doesnt have to be so early!

There are a number of conditions that make a pregnancy life-threatening for the mother from the very first month

Deleted User wrote: »

In the case of people with mental problems who might commit suicide why not put the kids up for adoption?

And what, put them on 24 hour suicide watch for 6, 7 months?

bleg · 12-02-2011 2:05pm

Abortions for some, miniature Irish flags and higher taxes for others.

takun · 12-02-2011 2:16pm

I seriously get the impression that quite a few of the people who are so absolutist or who seem to think there are simple answers to complex issues like abortion are young and/or have not personally faced these issues.

I was a young woman and a student at the time of the (horrible and divisive) referendum in 1984. I had friends who had had abortions, and friends who were vehemently opposed to abortion on just about any grounds. Opinions were very strongly held and very very vigorously and often contentiously debated. People fell out, long standing friendship were destroyed. It was not a nice time.

I recently attended a class reunion, and the conversation at one point came round to that referendum and to all it subsequently led to. It was extraordinary how time and all the sh** it flings at you had mellowed people's views. Nobody was as absolutist as their youthful self had been.

This is one of the reasons why I think the notion that 'older people' are the ones who are necessarily the more conservative on this issue is not necessarily true.

nesf · 12-02-2011 2:45pm

takun wrote: »

I seriously get the impression that quite a few of the people who are so absolutist or who seem to think there are simple answers to complex issues like abortion are young and/or have not personally faced these issues.

I was a young woman and a student at the time of the (horrible and divisive) referendum in 1984. I had friends who had had abortions, and friends who were vehemently opposed to abortion on just about any grounds. Opinions were very strongly held and very very vigorously and often contentiously debated. People fell out, long standing friendship were destroyed. It was not a nice time.

I recently attended a class reunion, and the conversation at one point came round to that referendum and to all it subsequently led to. It was extraordinary how time and all the sh** it flings at you had mellowed people's views. Nobody was as absolutist as their youthful self had been.

This is one of the reasons why I think the notion that 'older people' are the ones who are necessarily the more conservative on this issue is not necessarily true.

I think you have a point but conversely I've met quite a few absolutist people in their autumn years. I think for some it's a passing phase (similar to extremes of right or left wing politics in general) and for others it's a personality trait.

Up de Barrs · 12-02-2011 8:46pm

Reilly616 wrote: »

You are simply wrong.

"Held by the Supreme Court (Finlay C.J., McCarthy, O'Flaherty and Egan JJ.: Hederman J. dissenting) ... That the true interpretation of Article 40, s. 3, sub-s. 3 of the Constitution required that termination of pregnancy was permissible only when it was established as a matter of probability that there was a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother if such termination were not effected."

Clear enough now, or would you like direct quotes from some of the concurring judges?

Chief Justice Finlay said: "I, therefore, conclude that the proper test to be applied is that if it is established as a matter of probability that there is a real and substantial risk to the life, as distinct from the health, of the mother, which can only be avoided by the termination of her pregnancy, such termination is permissible, having regard to the true interpretation of Article 40, s. 3, sub-s. 3 of the Constitution." [1992] 1 IR 1 at 53-54.

Justice O'Flaherty said (at page 87): "Until legislation is enacted to provide otherwise, I believe that the law in this State is that surgical intervention which has the effect of terminating pregnancy bona fide undertaken to save the life of the mother where she is in danger of death is permissible under the Constitution and the law. The danger has to represent a substantial risk to her life though this does not necessarily have to be an imminent danger of instant death."

Justice Egan said (at page 92): "In my opinion the true test should be that a pregnancy may be terminated if its continuance as a matter of probability involves a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother. The risk must be to her life..."

Thanks for putting that information together, it is pretty clear that the room for legislation based on the X case ruling is actually quite limited. Labour would not be in a position to legislate for abortion where a woman's health is in danger.
The best way to resolve this once an for all is to put a referendum which delete the constitutional provision relating to abortion and allows the Dail to legislate on the issue. The trend of public opinion is definitely towards provision of safe legal abortion on request, if it is not a majority now it soon will be.

ilovesleep · 12-02-2011 9:08pm

This thread is ridiculous - vote labour, they become government, and leagalise abortion straight away - thats not going to happen. They will put it to a referendum and allow people to decide on abortion.

Reilly616 · 12-02-2011 10:36pm

Up de Barrs wrote: »

Thanks for putting that information together, it is pretty clear that the room for legislation based on the X case ruling is actually quite limited. Labour would not be in a position to legislate for abortion where a woman's health is in danger.
The best way to resolve this once an for all is to put a referendum which delete the constitutional provision relating to abortion and allows the Dail to legislate on the issue. The trend of public opinion is definitely towards provision of safe legal abortion on request, if it is not a majority now it soon will be.

No problem mate. Always important to cite the sources!

DeVore · 13-02-2011 2:39am

Reilly616 wrote: »

Did I miss something, or did KP just delete all his posts once he realised he was wrong?

I can only confirm that KP deleted his own posts, it was not done by a mod or admin of Boards.

DeV.

Killer Pigeon · 13-02-2011 3:07am

Reilly616 wrote: »

Did I miss something, or did KP just delete all his posts once he realised he was wrong?

I wasn't wrong about anything other than that small little thing that you mentioned (i.e., the Supreme Courts interpretation on the constitution was one that allowed allowed abortion if the mother's life was endangered and nothing else).

I merely deleted all my posts because after I drank a shoulder of vodka and rum this apparition appeared to me and told me that abortion was evil and I must delete all my posts. The next morning I woke up and realised the apparition wasn't real and that all my posts were gone.

DeVore · 13-02-2011 3:18am

WTF?

DeV.

Reilly616 · 13-02-2011 3:25am

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

I wasn't wrong about anything other than that small little thing that you mentioned (i.e., the Supreme Courts interpretation on the constitution was one that allowed allowed abortion if the mother's life was endangered and nothing else).

If you knew anything about abortion law in this country, you would know that the distinction between a threat to the life of the mother on the one hand, and a threat to her health on the other, is anything but a "small little thing".

nesf · 13-02-2011 1:53pm

ilovesleep wrote: »

This thread is ridiculous - vote labour, they become government, and leagalise abortion straight away - thats not going to happen. They will put it to a referendum and allow people to decide on abortion.

Nah they're all closet crypto-socialists and will impose it by fiat while simultaneously banning religion and Taytos. They're evil I tells ya!

13-02-2011 4:52pm

supergowl wrote: »

your 'unborn' in this context is not a human life. Every major empirical study on the subject has proven that the foetus, up to the maximum applicable limit for abortion (i.e. 24 weeks) does not meet the definitions and requirements (i.e. neurologically, histologically, functionally) of valid human life.
(In case you were wondering, yes I am a woman, and yes, I have studied reproductive biology. I often consider leaving this country where my rights are so truncated. The choice for my having a child is and should be mine and mine alone. Every counter-argument is either baseless or purely hypothetical. To be blunt, there is no life on earth such a decision would **** up more than my own. The state should have no say in it, but it should have an obligation to provide adequate and safe facilities either way.)

A human sperm cell fuses with a human ovum in the process of fertilisation/conception. From this process, a new entity is formed containing DNA absolutely consistent with that of Homo sapiens sapiens.

How can the 'unborn' not be a human life?

The concept of validity is moot. Either this new being is human or it is not.

[(In case you were wondering in turn, I am a woman (though I still consider myself a 'girl') and I didn't take Biology in college or for the Leaving Cert. I'm a Catholic who loves her faith and accept the teaching in the Bible, Tradition and the Magisterium. I also believe that the state has an obligation to provide adequate and safe facilities and also that it should be extended towards both mother and child to the end that both lives be protected as far as possible.]

Reilly616 · 13-02-2011 5:58pm

Deleted User wrote: »

A human sperm cell fuses with a human ovum in the process of fertilisation/conception. From this process, a new entity is formed containing DNA absolutely consistent with that of Homo sapiens sapiens.

How can the 'unborn' not be a human life?

Human stem cells also contain DNA "absolutely consistent with that of Homo sapiens sapiens". As do skin cells, liver cells etc. None of the above are to be considered as being "human life", just like a zygote is not a "human life".

The concept of "the unborn" in Irish law is a legal fallacy. One which the Supreme Court has done everything they can do to restrict.

fisgon · 13-02-2011 8:53pm

Deleted User wrote: »

. Either this new being is human or it is not.

It's always black and white, isn't it? No room for complexity. That is exactly the weakness of your position, biology and human life are incredibly complex, yet you want to reduce everything to an either/or. Then you end up in the ridiculous position of having to say that a one day old embryo with no brain, blood, nervous system, digestive system or even gender is as fully human as a 10 year old child or a middle aged woman, or a man in his 30s.

If I wasn't voting Labour before Quinn's article, I certainly am now.

13-02-2011 11:59pm

cassi wrote: »

How exactly does it effect YOU, if a woman has an abortion? How exactly does it effect YOU, if two people of the same sex in a committed and loving relationship want to get married?

Im not trying to get at you personally, Im just interested in hearing why people are so anti abortion and anti same sex marriage when, as I see it, it should really effect them at all!!

Cassie: although these questions weren't directed at me, I'd like to add my voice.

On abortion:
You've probably heard the speculative argument that goes something like, "This child could have been the scientist to find the cure for cancer". While that could be true, it's debatable. You might say, "Well, that's the nature of speculation." True. However, some things which we speculate are more likely to happen than others. It's more likely that the infant could have grown up to be a great son/daughter, brother/sister, friend, and so on. Of course, we can't say. Which leads me back to more certain issues and answering your question.

How does another woman's abortion affect me personally? Without a proper context, I don't know. But how it does (or does not) affect me isn't central to why I disagree with abortion. I disagree with it (completely) because it deliberately ends a human life.

On same-sex marriage:
As above, how it does or does not affect me isn't the key point. I believe that marriage = man+woman. With all due respect, 'same-sex marriage' doesn't exist in my view because it doesn't follow that particular formula.

PeterIanStaker · 14-02-2011 12:22am

Retail Hell wrote: »

good enough reason to vote for labour then

Damn right. That Quinn is a reactionary catholofascist homophobic bigot and his Iona institute is a joke. I genuinely pity anyone who takes him seriously.

tomasocarthaigh · 14-02-2011 12:24am

A quick solution to a complex problem - a multiple round referenda to sort abortion issue...

Round one:

When is abortion to be legal:

a) Never
b) When the mother is raped
c) If the baby is handicapped
d) On demand

Round one eliminates the least favourable...

Round two offers the three remaining, the least favourable eliminated, until round three is a straight one against one option...

To be regheld every 30 years, so each generation can make their own laws....

Any chance of anyone getting a poll going here for a virtual one on these lines?

14-02-2011 12:44am

Deleted User wrote: »

On same-sex marriage:
As above, how it does or does not affect me isn't the key point. I believe that marriage = man+woman. With all due respect, 'same-sex marriage' doesn't exist in my view because it doesn't follow that particular formula.

Simple question: why? To be more specific, why is your view any more more relevant than someone else's? There are plenty of people out there who don't consider marriages outside their particular religion to be 'real' marriages, does that mean you can never be married?

brianthelion · 14-02-2011 12:54am

PeterIanStaker wrote: »

Damn right. That Quinn is a reactionary catholofascist homophobic bigot and his Iona institute is a joke. I genuinely pity anyone who takes him seriously.

I always find it amazing that the people in favour of abortion have already been born

Reilly616 · 14-02-2011 2:12am

brianthelion wrote: »

I always find it amazing that the people in favour of abortion have already been born

Really? You find that amazing? You find it amazing that the people capable of forming opinions, ie: the people who exist, have been born?

oceanclub · 14-02-2011 11:18am

brianthelion wrote: »

I always find it amazing that the people in favour of abortion have already been born

That line wasn't clever when Reagan said it and it's still not clever.

P.

Dave! · 14-02-2011 1:37pm

A better line is, "Why is it that most of the people who are against abortion are people you wouldn't want to fuck in the first place?"

Thank you George Carlin

A vote for Labour is a vote for Abortion - Iona Institute

Comments